User talk:Lassoboy

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lassoboy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kissology Volume Two: 1978-1991. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Muhandes (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits to concert tours

I appreciate anyone new who is editing concert tour articles, but I obviously had some problems with some of your WP:BOLD edits, so I reverted them and now I also have problems with your reversions. First off, per WP:BRD, you made WP:BOLD edits and once I reverted them with reasoning in my edit summaries, you need to start a discussion usually at the article talk page if only one article is in question or on a user talk page with the other editor. What you should not do is revert back without any or much of an argument, you need to have a discussion to form a consensus. You seem to have a case of WP:OWN, telling me I cannot even edit the city links and that User:Nerdtrap can fix the links. You also need to start adding Help:Edit summary, since you make changes to pages without telling other editors why you made those changes. "rv some changes" is not adequate because you do not explain either what the changes are or why they are being made, especially when you are reverting someone.

First, city links should not be listed in the infobox per Template:Infobox concert tour. Second, almost every concert tour article splits up the legs by continents and you give no reason why you changed some of the legs, especially just to list one country, when the country is already listed in the column and the reader can see that. Third, most concert tour articles do not number the concerts simply because they are unnecessary. You never gave a reason for adding the numbers, I reverted saying that they were unneeded, you reverted saying my edit was unneeded, meaning that the numbers are needed, but you have still yet to give any reason why they are needed. Until such time as there is a consensus on these issues, I am going to go back to the stable status quo versions of the article, please discuss here instead of reverting. I am also going to alert User:Nerdtrap to this discussion since you used his name in edit summaries and I used his name here. Aspects (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

I will try to explain my issues as good as I can, because English is not my native language, so I apologize for possible grammar mistakes.

1) Ok, I agree with you about the city links. That`s fine. There is no problem with that.

2) Secondly, you said that almost every concert tour article splits up the legs by continents and I give you no reason why I changed some of the legs, especially just to list one country, when the country is already listed in the column and the reader can see that.

I did it, because they seemed more rational headings to me. For example, Bad Tour visited 23 times Japan only. Why to write in the heading that the 6th leg took place in Asia? Or, Bad Tour also visited 54 times United States only. Why to write "North America" as the heading (of course, when Bad Tour had visited Canada, too, then it would be ok having such a heading). So in Bad Tour article I would write the 6th Leg`s heading as "Leg 6: Japan" not "Asia" and the USA Legs as "Leg3/5: United States" not "North America" only.

In Dangerous Tour and History Tour articles, I would only write "First Leg", "Second Leg", "Third Leg". Why so? I would do it like that because there were so many different continents during those specific legs that it would be inappropriate (in my opinion) to list those 3-5 continets separately into one leg without mentioning the legs. Do you understand? My goal was to make the articles more compact and understandable. And we can see that Michael`s concerts would divide into 2 or 3 Legs so that there were many months in between them as a vacation (Especially during the Dangerous and History tours). If you do not get my point, please look the reverted changes.

3) Thirdly, you wrote that most concert tour articles do not number the concerts simply because they are unnecessary. I never gave a reason for adding the numbers, I reverted saying that they were unneeded, I reverted saying my edit was unneeded, meaning that the numbers are needed, but I have still yet to give any reason why they are needed.

I spent hours and hours to type those numbers into these Michael Jackson and Iron Maiden articles. Why I did so? I did it, because for me, as a fan of them, it is very important to find, in which order the specific concerts were taken place. For example I want to know, in which order Michael Jackson gave his Bucharest performance during the Dangerous Tour. And then I would look at the article, and see that it was the 37th concert of the tour and so on. And so is for the Iron Maiden articles. No fan has yet reverted my numbering. So, I think these numbers would fit into these articles. You probably do not understand it, but it`s the fan`s "click", you know.

And added to this, during numbering the Iron Maiden articles, I found out that the total numbers of the concerts were wrong! Please, see the talk pages of these articles. So, numbering would also be the control mechanism for these articles.

Anyway, do what you have to do, but if you decide to delete all my additions into those articles (especially numbering), I think that I have done with Wikipedia editing, because may be I do not fit here (as a fan) and my time is much more worth than seeing my hard work reverted back.

Thank you. Lassoboy (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and I apologize for the late reply, but I just now got back to Wikipedia. In general, I would advise responding on your own talk page to a discussion so it all be in one place, especially if multiple people are in the discussion. I have decided that I am not going to split up legs into continents if someone else splits them into legs with close dates. I still feel it is pointless to list just a single country that is already listed in the column and that those should list the continent. Also regarding the numbers, most readers want to know the locations and order of performances and do not care where the 37th performance took place and if they did they could still count down the list and figure it out. Aspects (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Regarding numbering: but it would still be easier for the readers to look numbers instead of counting down, especially, when there are aprox. 190 concerts (Iron Maiden Slavey World Tour, for example).

2) So, can I add those Legs with close dates for the Dangerous and History tours? I would not do this for Bad tour, because the continets fit there better. Ok, lets`s leave the countries out. Contintents fit better.

3) So, what about the numbers?? Your word will be the last one, but before making the decision, consider my previous 2 main goals: to make the dates for these tours to look more compact (visually better) and more easier to count. Lassoboy (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The dates can be made to look more compact by reducing the width of the column, so the numbers ar not needed for that. By numbers not being on other tour articles, it can be seen that there is not a huge demand for readers wanting to count what number a certain concert was. Therefore they should not be added back in, especially since there was no consensus found for them and as such will be removed from the articles. Aspects (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

May be other people just have not realized yet that the serial numbers make it easier for them to count the concerts! The need for the numbers can be interpreted in different ways. I will say that these numbers are needed for better counting. And I bet that lots of people do not want to write down numbers for hours and hours!!?

So, who will say when the consensus has been found?? You only by yourself? I will add those numbers back, you probably can block me from wikipedia, but then it will be a complete censorship, because I have not done anything unlawful or anything that violates wikipedia clauses. Do not make me think that editing wikipedia and introducing new thoughts/ideas to Wikipedia articles is a complete waste of time. Yeah, I know that I said that your word would be the last one, but, hey, why I have to let you walk over me??? So, the talk is still going on. Lassoboy (talk) 11:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not think you have made provided any effective evidence that the numbers are needed to count the concerts and in fact whenever I counterargue your argument, you seem to give them up and then try to throw more arguments against the wall to see if any of them stick. a consensus can be found when there is something to be agreed upon. With two editors arguing complete different positions, there would be a consensus formed if other editors join the discussion. If there is no further discussion, the article stays at the status quo version before the BRD happened. There have been no needs put forth from other editors that the numbers help improve the articles. If the talk is still going on, you should not be reverting back to your preferred version and the status quo version should be maintained until a new consensus is formed. Aspects (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Dangerous World Tour. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Mephistophelian (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)